arxiv:math/ v2 [math.co] 1 May 2009
|
|
- Claude Butler
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Submitted exclusively to the London Mathematical Society doi: /0000/ Combinatorial complexity in o-minimal geometry arxiv:math/ v2 [math.co] 1 May 2009 Saugata Basu Abstract In this paper we prove tight bounds on the combinatorial and topological complexity of sets defined in terms of n definable sets belonging to some fixed definable family of sets in an o- minimal structure. This generalizes the combinatorial parts of similar bounds known in the case of semi-algebraic and semi-pfaffian sets, and as a result vastly increases the applicability of results on combinatorial and topological complexity of arrangements studied in discrete and computational geometry. As a sample application, we extend a Ramsey-type theorem due to Alon et al. [3], originally proved for semi-algebraic sets of fixed description complexity to this more general setting. 1. Introduction Over the last twenty years there has been a lot of work on bounding the topological complexity (measured in terms of their Betti numbers) of several different classes of subsets of R k most notably semi-algebraic and semi-pfaffian sets. The usual setting for proving these bounds is as follows. One considers a semi-algebraic (or semi-pfaffian) set S R k defined by a Boolean formula whose atoms consists of P > 0,P = 0,P < 0, P P, where P is a set of polynomials (resp. Pfaffian functions) of degrees bounded by a parameter (resp. whose Pfaffian complexity is bounded by certain parameters) and #P = n. It is possible to obtain bounds on the Betti numbers of S in terms of n,k and the parameters bounding the complexity of the functions in P Known bounds in the semi-algebraic and semi-pfaffian cases In the semi-algebraiccase,ifwe assumethat the degreesofthe polynomialsin P arebounded by d, and denoting by b i (S) the i-th Betti number of S, then it is shown in [21] that, b i (S) n 2k O(d) k. (1.1) i 0 A similar bound is also shown for semi-pfaffian sets [21]. In another direction, we also have reasonably tight bounds on the sum of the Betti numbers of the realizations of all realizable sign conditions of the family P. A sign condition on P is an element of {0,1, 1} P, and the realization of a sign condition σ is the set, It is shown in [9] that, R(σ) = {x R k sign(p(x)) = σ(p), P P}. k i ( ) n b i (R(σ)) 4 j d(2d 1) k 1 = n k i O(d) k. (1.2) j σ {0,1, 1} P j= Mathematics Subject Classification 52C45. The author was supported in part by an NSF grant CCF
2 Page 2 of 24 SAUGATA BASU We refer the reader to [8, 9, 20, 21, 18], as well as the survey article [4] for a comprehensive history of the work leading up to the above results, as well as several other interesting results in this area Combinatorial and algebraic complexity Notice that the bounds in (1.1) and (1.2) are products of two quantities one that depends only on n (and k), and another part which is independent of n, but depends on the parameters controlling the complexity of individual elements of P (such as degrees of polynomials in the semi-algebraic case, or the degrees and the length of the Pfaffian chain defining the functions in the Pfaffian case). It is customary to refer to the first part as the combinatorial part of the complexity, and the latter as the algebraic (or Pfaffian) part. Moreover, the algebraic or the Pfaffian parts of the bound depend on results whose proofs involve Morse theory (for instance, the well known Oleinik-Petrovsky-Thom-Milnor bounds on the Betti numbers of real varieties [25, 29, 24]). While understanding the algebraic part of the complexity is a very important problem, in several applications, most notably in discrete and computational geometry, it is the combinatorial part of the complexity that is of primary interest (the algebraic part is assumed to be bounded by a constant). The motivation behind this point of view is the following. In problems in discrete and computational geometry, one typically encounters arrangements of a large number of objects in R k (for some fixed k), where each object is of bounded description complexity (for example, defined by a polynomial inequality of degree bounded by a constant). Thus, it is the number of objects that constitutes the important parameter, and the algebraic complexity of the individual objects are thought of as small constants. It is this second setting that is our primary interest in this paper. The main results of this paper generalize (combinatorial parts of) the bounds in (1.1) and (1.2) to sets which are definable in an arbitrary o-minimal structure over a real closed field R (see Section below for the definition of an o-minimal structure and definable sets). Instead of only considering sets having bounded description complexity, we allow the sets in an arrangement A to be fibers of some fixed definable map π : T R l, where T R k+l is a definable set. This vastly expands the applicability of results concerning complexity of arrangements in discrete and computational geometry, since it is no longer necessary that the objects in the arrangements be defined only in terms of polynomials. As we will see shortly, the sets we consider are allowed to be fairly arbitrary. They include sets defined by restricted analytic functions, including (but not by any means restricted to) polynomials, Pfaffian functions such as exponential, logarithmic, trigonometric, inverse trigonometric functions, subject to some mild conditions. All hitherto considered families of objects in the computational geometry literature, such as hyperplanes, simplices, and more generally sets having bounded description complexity are special instances of this general definition. We also consider sets belonging to the Boolean algebra generated by n sets in R k each of which is a fiber of a fixed definable map. We prove tight bounds on the Betti numbers, the topological complexity of projections, as well as on the complexity of cylindrical decomposition of such sets, in terms of n and k. The role of the algebraic complexity is played by a constant that depends only on the particular definable family. In this way, we are able to generalize the notion of combinatorial complexity to definable sets over an arbitrary o-minimal structure. Apart from the intrinsic mathematical interest of the results proved in the paper, we believe that the techniques used to prove them would be of interest to researchers in discrete and computational geometry. We show that most (if not all) results on the complexity of arrangements are consequences of a set of very simple and well-studied axioms (those defining o-minimal structures). Many widely used techniques in the study of arrangements are strongly dependent on the assumption that the sets under consideration are semi-algebraic. For example,
3 COMBINATORIAL COMPLEXITY IN O-MINIMAL GEOMETRY Page 3 of 24 it is common to consider real algebraic varieties of fixed degree as hyperplane sections of the corresponding Veronese variety in a higher (but still fixed) dimensional space a technique called linearization in computational geometry literature (see [2]). Obviously, such methods fail if the given sets are not semi-algebraic. Our methods make no use of semi-algebraicity of the objects, nor bounds derived from Morse theory such as the classical Oleinik-Petrovsky-Thom- Milnor bounds on Betti numbers of real algebraic varieties. We believe that this point of view simplifies proofs, and simultaneously generalizes vastly the class of objects which are allowed, at the same time getting rid of unnecessary assumptions such as requiring the objects to be in general position. It is likely that the techniques developed here will find further applications in the combinatorial study of arrangements other than those discussed in this paper Arrangements in computational geometry We now make precise the notions of arrangements, cells and their complexities, following their usual definitions in discrete and computational geometry [2, 22]. Let A = {S 1,...,S n }, such that each S i is a subset of R k belonging to some simple class of sets. (We will define the class of admissible sets that we consider precisely in Section 1.5 below). For I {1,...,n}, we let A(I) denote the set S i R k \S j, i I [1...n] j [1...n]\I and it is customary to call a connected component of A(I) a cell of the arrangement (even though it might not be a cell in the sense of topology). We let C(A) denote the set of all non-empty cells of the arrangement A. The cardinality of C(A) is called the combinatorial complexity of the arrangement A. Since different cells of an arrangement might differ topologically, it makes sense to give more weight to a topologically complicated cell than to a topologically simple one in the definition of complexity. With this in mind we define (following [7]) the topological complexity of a cell to be the sum of its Betti numbers (the ranks of singular homology groups of the cell). The class of sets usually considered in the study of arrangements are sets with bounded description complexity (see [2]). This means that each set in the arrangement is defined by a first order formula in the language of ordered fields involving at most a constant number polynomials whose degrees are also bounded by a constant. Additionally, there is often a requirement that the sets be in general position. The precise definition of general position varies with context, but often involves restrictions such as: the sets in the arrangements are smooth manifolds, intersecting transversally Arrangements over an o-minimal structure O-minimal structures present a natural mathematical framework to state and prove results on the complexity of arrangements. In this paper we consider arrangements whose members come from some fixed definable family in an o-minimal structure (see below for definitions). The usual notion of bounded description complexity turns out to be a special case of this more general definition O-minimal structures O-minimal structures were invented and first studied by Pillay and Steinhorn in the pioneering papers [26, 27] in part to show that the tame topological properties exhibited by the class of semi-algebraic sets are consequences of a set of few simple axioms. Later the theory was further developed through contributions of other researchers, most notably van den Dries, Wilkie, Rolin, Speissegger amongst others [31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 28]. We particularly recommend the book by van den Dries [30] and the notes by Coste [12]
4 Page 4 of 24 SAUGATA BASU for an easy introduction to the topic as well as the proofs of the basic results that we use in this paper. An o-minimal structure on a real closed field R is just a class of subsets of R k,k 0, (called the definable sets in the structure) satisfying these axioms (see below). The class of semialgebraic sets is one obvious example of such a structure, but in fact there are much richer classes of sets which have been proved to be o-minimal (see below). For instance, subsets of R k defined in terms inequalities involving not just polynomials, but also trigonometric and exponential functions on restricted domains have been proved to be o-minimal. We now formally define o-minimal structures (following [12]). Definition 1. An o-minimal structure on a real closed field R is a sequence S(R) = (S n ) n N, where each S n is a collection of subsets of R n, satisfying the following axioms [12]. (i) All algebraic subsets of R n are in S n. (ii) The class S n is closed under complementation and finite unions and intersections. (iii) If A S m and B S n then A B S m+n. (iv) If π : R n+1 R n is the projection map on the first n co-ordinates and A S n+1, then π(a) S n. (v) The elements of S 1 are precisely finite unions of points and intervals Examples of o-minimal structures Example 1. Our first example of an o-minimal structure S(R), is the o-minimal structure over a real closed field R where each S n is the class of semi-algebraic subsets of R n. It follows easily from the Tarski-Seidenberg principle (see [11]) that the class of sets S n satisfies the axioms in Definition 1. We will denote this o-minimal structure by S sa (R). If Example 1 was the only example of o-minimal structure available then the notion of o- minimality would not be very interesting. However, there are many more examples (see for example [30, 31, 32, 33, 28, 34, 35]). Example 2. [34] Let S n be the images in R n under the projection maps R n+k R n of sets of the form {(x,y) R n+k P(x,y,e x,e y ) = 0}, where P is a real polynomial in 2(n+ k) variables, and e x = (e x1,...,e xn ) and e y = (e y1,...,e y k ). We will denote this o-minimal structure over R by S exp (R). Example 3. [19] Let S n be the images in R n under the projection maps R n+k R n of sets of the form {(x,y) R n+k P(x,y) = 0}, where P is a restricted analytic function in n + k variables. A restricted analytic function in N variables is an analytic function defined on an open neighborhood of [0,1] N restricted to [0,1] N (and extended by 0 outside). We will denote this o-minimal structure over R by S ana (R). The o-minimality of the last two classes are highly non-trivial theorems Admissible sets We now define the sets that will play the role of objects of constant description complexity in the rest of the paper.
5 COMBINATORIAL COMPLEXITY IN O-MINIMAL GEOMETRY Page 5 of 24 Definition 2. LetS(R)beano-minimalstructureonarealclosedfieldRandletT R k+l be a definable set. Let π 1 : R k+l R k (resp. π 2 : R k+l R l ), be the projections onto the first k (resp. last l) co-ordinates. R k T R k+l π 1 π 2 We will call a subset S of R k to be a (T,π 1,π 2 )-set if S = π 1 (π 1 2 (y) T) for some y R l, and when the context is clear we will denote T y = π 1 (π2 1 (y) T). In this paper, we will consider finite families of (T,π 1,π 2 )-sets, where T is some fixed definable set for each such family, and we will call a family of (T,π 1,π 2 )-sets to be a (T,π 1,π 2 )-family. We will also sometimes refer to a finite (T,π 1,π 2 )-family as an arrangement of (T,π 1,π 2 )-sets. R l For any definable set X R k, we let b i (X) denote the i-th Betti number of X, and we let b(x) denote i 0 b i(x). We define the topological complexity of an arrangement A of (T,π 1,π 2 )-sets to be the number k b i (D). D C(A) i=0 Remark 1. We remark here that for o-minimal structures over an arbitrary real closed field R, ordinary singular homology is not well defined. Even though o-minimal versions of singular co-homology theory, as well Čech co-homology theory, has been developed recently (see [14, 15]), in this paper we take a simpler approach and use a modified homology theory (which agrees with singular homology in case R = R and which is homotopy invariant) as done in [5] in case of semi-algebraic sets over arbitrary real closed fields (see [5], page 279). The underlying idea behind that definition is as follows. Since closed and bounded semi-algebraic (as well as definable) sets are finitely triangulable, simplicial homology is well defined for such sets. Furthermore, it is shown in [6] that it is possible to replace an arbitrary semi-algebraic set by a closed and bounded one which is homotopy equivalent to the original set. We prove an analogous result for arbitrary definable sets in this paper (see Theorem 3.3 below). We now define the homology groups of the original set to be the simplicial homology groups of the closed and bounded definable set which is homotopy equivalent to it. It is clear that this definition is homotopy invariant. We now give a few examples to show that arrangements of objects of bounded description complexities are included in the class of arrangements we study, but our class is much larger since T need not be semi-algebraic Examples Example 4. Let S(R) be the o-minimal structure S sa (R). Let T R 2k+1 be the semialgebraic set defined by T = {(x 1,...,x k,a 1,...,a k,b) a,x b = 0}
6 Page 6 of 24 SAUGATA BASU (wherewedenotea = (a 1,...,a k )andx = (x 1,...,x k )),andπ 1 andπ 2 aretheprojectionsonto the first k and last k +1 co-ordinates respectively. A (T,π 1,π 2 )-set is clearly a hyperplane in R k and vice versa. Example 5. Again, let S(R) be the o-minimal structure S sa (R). Let T R k+k(k+1) be the semi-algebraic set defined by T = {(x,y 0,...,y k ) x,y 0,...,y k R k,x conv(y 0,...,y k )}, and π 1 and π 2 the projections onto the first k and last k(k +1) co-ordinates respectively. A (T,π 1,π 2 )-set is a (possibly degenerate) k-simplex in R k and vice versa. Arrangements of hyperplanes as well as simplices have been well studied in computational geometry, and thus the two previous examples do not introduce anything new. We now discuss an example which could not be handled by the existing techniques in computational geometry, such as linearization. Example 6. Now, let S(R) be the o-minimal structure S exp (R). Let T R k+m(k+1) be the set defined by T = {(x,y 1,...,y m,a 1,...,a m ) x,y 1,...,y m R k,a 1,...,a m R, m x 1,...,x k > 0, a i x yi = 0}, and π 1 : R k+m(k+1) R k and π 2 : R k+m(k+1) R m(k+1) be the projections onto the first k and last m(k +1) co-ordinatesrespectively. It can be shown that T is definable in the structure S exp (R). The (T,π 1,π 2 )-sets in this example include (amongst others) all semi-algebraic sets consisting of intersections with the positive orthant of all real algebraic sets defined by a polynomial having at most m monomials (different sets of monomials are allowed to occur in different polynomials). i=0 Definition 3. Let A = {S 1,...,S n }, such that each S i R k is a (T,π 1,π 2 )-set. For I {1,...,n}, we let A(I) denote the set S i R k \S j, (1.3) i I [1...n] j [1...n]\I and we will call such a set to be a basic A-set. We will denote by C(A) the set of non-empty connected components of all basic A-sets. We will call definable subsets S R k defined by a Boolean formula whose atoms are of the form, x S i,1 i n, a A-set. A A-set is thus a union of basic A-sets. If T is closed, and the Boolean formula defining S has no negations, then S is closed by definition (since each S i being homeomorphic to the intersection of T with a closed set π 1 (y) for some y R l is closed) and we call such a set an A-closed set. Moreover, if V is any closed definable subset of R k, and S is an A-set (resp. A-closed set), then we will call S V an (A,V)-set (resp. (A,V)-closed set) Known properties Definable families of sets in an o-minimal structure (such as those defined above) have been studied and they satisfy important finiteness properties similar to those of semi-algebraic
7 COMBINATORIAL COMPLEXITY IN O-MINIMAL GEOMETRY Page 7 of 24 families. We list here a couple of properties which are important in the combinatorial study of arrangements Finiteness of topological types Theorem 1.1 [30, 12]. Let S(R) be an o-minimal structure over a real closed field R and let T R k+l be a closed definable set. Then, the number of homeomorphism types amongst (T,π 1,π 2 )-sets is finite. Remark 2. Note that, since the sum of the Betti number of any definable set is finite (since they are finitely triangulable [12, Theorem 4.4]) Theorem 1.1 implies that there exists a constant C = C(T) (depending only on T) such that for any (T,π 1,π 2 )-set S, k b i (S) C. i= Finiteness of VC dimension The notion of Vapnik-Chervonenkis dimension is important in many applications in computational geometry (see [22]). We note here that (T,π 1,π 2 )-families have finite Vapnik-Chervonenkis dimension, for any fixed definable T R k+l. The following result is proved in [30]. We first recall the definition of the Vapnik-Chervonenkis dimension. Definition 4 [22]. Let F be a set of subsets of an infinite set X. We say that a finite subset A X is shattered by F if each subset B of A can be expressed as F B A for some F B F. The VC-dimension of F is defined as sup A. A X, A <,A is shattered by F Theorem 1.2 [30]. Let T be some definable subset of R k+l in some o-minimal structure S(R), and π 1 : R k+l R k,π 2 : R k+l R l the two projections. Then the VC-dimension of the family of (T,π 1,π 2 )-sets is finite. 2. Main results In this section we state our main results. As stated in the Introduction, our goal is to study the combinatorial and topological complexity of sets defined in terms of n definable sets belonging to a fixed definable family in terms of the parameter n. We show that the basic results on combinatorial and topological complexity of arrangements continue to hold in this setting. Finally, as a sample application of our results we extend a recent result of Alon et al.[3] on crossing patterns of semi-algebraic sets to the o-minimal setting. Remark 3. As remarked earlier, in many results on bounding the combinatorial complexity of arrangements (of sets of constant description complexity) there is an assumption that the sets be ingeneralposition[1]. Thisis aratherstrongassumptionand enablesonetoassume,for instance, if the sets of the arrangements are hypersurfaces, that they intersect transversally and this property usually plays a crucial role in the proof. In this paper we make no assumptions on general positions, nor on the objects of the arrangement themselves (apart from the fact
8 Page 8 of 24 SAUGATA BASU that they come from a fixed definable family). The homological methods used in this paper make such assumptions unnecessary Combinatorial and topological complexity of arrangements Theorem 2.1. Let S(R) be an o-minimal structure over a real closed field R and let T R k+l be a closed definable set. Then, there exists a constant C = C(T) > 0 depending only on T, such that for any (T,π 1,π 2 )-family A = {S 1,...,S n } of subsets of R k the following holds. (i) For every i,0 i k, b i (D) C n k i. D C(A) In particular, the combinatorial complexity of A, which is equal to b 0 (D), D C(A) is at most C n k. (ii) The topological complexity of any m cells in the arrangement A is bounded by m+c n k 1. Since dimension is a definable invariant (see [30]) we can refine the notions of combinatorial and topological complexity to arrangements restricted to a definable set of possibly smaller dimension than that of the ambient space as follows. Let V be a closed definable subset of R k of dimension k k. For any (T,π 1,π 2 )-family, A = {S 1,...,S n }, of subsets of R k, and I {1,...,n}, we let A(I,V) denote the set V S i R k \S j, (2.1) i I [1...n] j [1...n]\I and we call a connected component of A(I,V) a cell of the arrangement restricted to V. Let C(A,V) denote the set of all non-empty cells of the arrangement A restricted to V, and we call the cardinality of C(A, V) the combinatorial complexity of the arrangement A restricted to V. Similarly, we define the topological complexity of an arrangement A restricted to V to be the number k D C(A,V) i=0 b i (D). We have the following generalization of Theorem 2.1. Theorem 2.2. Let S(R) be an o-minimal structure over a real closed field R and let T R k+l,v R k becloseddefinablesetswithdim(v) = k.then,thereexistsaconstantc = C(T,V) > 0dependingonlyonT andv,suchthatforany(t,π 1,π 2 )-family,a = {S 1,...,S n }, of subsets of R k, and for every i,0 i k, b i (D) C n k i. D C(A,V ) In particular, the combinatorial complexity of A restricted to V, which is equal to D C(A,V ) b 0(D), is bounded by C n k.
9 COMBINATORIAL COMPLEXITY IN O-MINIMAL GEOMETRY Page 9 of 24 Now,letasbeforeS(R)beano-minimalstructureoverarealclosedfieldR,andletT R k+l, V R k be closed definable sets with dim(v) = k. Theorem 2.3. Let S(R) be an o-minimal structure over a real closed field R, and let T R k+l, V R k be closed definable sets with dim(v) = k. Then, there exists a constant C = C(T,V) > 0 such that for any (T,π 1,π 2 )-family, A with A = n, and an A-closed set S 1 R k, and an A-set S 2 R k, b i (S 1 V) C n k and, k i=0 b i (S 2 V) C n 2k. k i= Topological complexity of projections In Theorem 2.3 we obtained bounds on the topological complexity of definable sets belonging to the Boolean algebra of sets generated by any (T,π 1,π 2 )-family of sets of cardinality n. We now consider the images of such sets under linear projections. Such projections are closely related to the classical problem of quantifier elimination, and play a very important role in semi-algebraic geometry. In the case of semi-algebraic sets, there exist effective algorithms for performing quantifier elimination, which enable one to compute semi-algebraic descriptions of projections of semi-algebraic sets in an efficient manner (see, for instance, [5]). Notice however that unlike in the case of semi-algebraic sets, we do not have effective algorithms for performing quantifier elimination over a general o-minimal structure. Using our theorem on quantitative cylindrical definable cell decomposition (Theorem 2.5 below) it is possible to give a doubly exponential bound (of the form C(T) n 2(2k 1) ) on the sum of the Betti numbers of such projections. However, adapting a spectral sequence argument from [18], we have the following singly exponential bound. Theorem 2.4 (Topological complexity of projections). Let S(R) be an o-minimal structure, and let T R k+l be a definable, closed and bounded set. Let k = k 1 +k 2 and let π 3 : R k R k2 denote the projection map on the last k 2 co-ordinates. Then, there exists a constant C = C(T) > 0 such that for any (T,π 1,π 2 )-family, A, with A = n, and an A-closed set S R k, k 2 i=0 b i (π 3 (S)) C n (k1+1)k Cylindrical definable cell decompositions In semi-algebraic geometry, cylindrical algebraic decomposition is a very important method for obtaining a decomposition of an arbitrary semi-algebraic set into topological balls of various dimensions. Once such a decomposition is computed, it can be refined to a semi-algebraic triangulation, and various topological information about a given semi-algebraic set (such as its Betti numbers) can be computed easily from such a triangulation. Moreover, cylindrical algebraic decomposition can also be used for solving the quantifier elimination problem (see [5] for an exposition and pointers to the large amount of literature on this subject).
10 Page 10 of 24 SAUGATA BASU The analogue of cylindrical algebraic decomposition over an o-minimal structure is called Cylindrical Definable Cell Decomposition. We first recall the definition of Cylindrical Definable Cell Decomposition (henceforth called cdcd) following [12]. Definition 5. A cdcd of R k is a finite partition of R k into definable sets (C i ) i I (called the cells of the cdcd) satisfying the following properties. (i) If k = 1 then a cdcd of R is given by a finite set of points a 1 < < a N and the cells of the cdcd are the singletons {a i } as well as the open intervals, (,a 1 ),(a 1,a 2 ),...,(a N, ). (ii) If k > 1, then a cdcd of R k is given by a cdcd, (C i ) i I, of Rk 1 and for each i I, a collection of cells, C i defined by where C i = {φ i (C i D j) j J i }, φ i : C i R Rk is a definable homeomorphism satisfying π φ = π, (D j ) j Ji is a cdcd of R, and π : R k R k 1 is the projection map onto the first k 1 coordinates. The cdcd of R k is then given by i I C i. Given a family of definable subsets A = {S 1,...,S n } of R k, we say that a cdcd is adapted to A, if each S i is a union of cells of the given cdcd. The fact that given any finite family A of definable subsets of R k, there exists a cdcd of R k adapted to A is classical (see [12, 30]). However, for the purposes of this paper we need a quantitative version of this result. Such quantitative versions are known in the semi-algebraic as well as semi-pfaffian categories (see, for example, [5, 20]), but is missing in the general o-minimal setting. Given a (T,π 1,π 2 )-family A of cardinality n, we give a bound on the size of a cdcd of R k adapted to this family in terms of n, and furthermore show that cells of the cdcd come from a definable family which depends only on T (independent of n) and each such cell can be defined only in terms of a constant number of elements of A. This latter property is essential in the combinatorial application described later in the paper. Since we will need to consider several different projections, we adopt the following convention. Given m and p, p m, we will denote by πm p : R m R p (resp. π m >p : R m R m p ) the projection onto the first p (resp. the last m p) coordinates. We prove the following theorem. Theorem 2.5 (Quantitative cylindrical definable cell decomposition). Let S(R) be an o- minimal structure over a real closed field R, and let T R k+l be a closed definable set. Then, there exist constants C 1,C 2 > 0 depending only on T, and definable sets, {T α } α I, T α R k R 2(2k 1) l, depending only on T, with I C 1, such that for any (T,π 1,π 2 )-family, A = {S 1,...,S n } with S i = T yi,y i R l,1 i n, some sub-collection of the sets ( ) π k π >k k+2(2 k 1) l k+2(2 1) l 1 k (yi1,...,y ) T i2(2 k α, 1) α I, 1 i 1,...,i 2(2 k 1) n,
11 COMBINATORIAL COMPLEXITY IN O-MINIMAL GEOMETRY Page 11 of 24 form a cdcd of R k compatible with A. Moreover, the cdcd has at most C 2 n 2(2k 1) cells. The combinatorial complexity bound in Theorem 2.5 compares favorably with the combinatorial parts of similar quantitative results on cylindrical decomposition of semi-algebraic sets (see for instance, Section 11.1 in [5]), as well as sub-pfaffian sets (see the main result in [16]). Moreover, since a doubly exponential dependence on k is unavoidable(see [13]), the complexity bound in Theorem 2.5 is very close to the best possible. Notice also that it is possible to use Theorem 2.5 to give a doubly exponential bound on the Betti numbers of an A-closed set. However, we prove much better (singly exponential) bounds on the Betti numbers of such sets (Theorems 2.1 and 2.2) using different techniques Application We end with an application (Theorem 2.6 below) which generalizes a Ramsey-type result due to Alon et al. [3] from the class of semi-algebraic sets of constant description complexity to (T,π 1,π 2 )-families. One immediate consequence of Theorem 2.6 is that if we have two (T,π 1,π 2 )-families, A and B of sufficiently large size, then one can always find a constant fraction, A A, B B of each, having the property that either every pair (A,B) A B satisfy some definable relation (for example, having a non-empty intersection) or no pair in A B satisfy that relation. More precisely, Theorem 2.6. Let S(R) be an o-minimal structure over a real closed field R, and let F be a closeddefinable subset ofr l R l. Then, there exists aconstant1 > ε = ε(f) > 0,depending only on F, such that for any set of n points, F = {y 1,...,y n R l } there exists two subfamilies F 1,F 2 F, with F 1, F 2 εn and either, (i) for all y i F 1 and y j F 2, (y i,y j ) F, or (ii) for no y i F 1 and y j F 2, (y i,y j ) F. An interesting application of Theorem 2.6 is the following. Corollary 2.7. Let S(R) be an o-minimal structure over a real closed field R, and let T R k+l be a closed definable set. Then, there exists a constant 1 > ε = ε(t) > 0 depending only on T, such that for any (T,π 1,π 2 )-family, A = {S 1,...,S n }, there exists two subfamilies A 1,A 2 A, with A 1, A 2 εn, and either, (i) for all S i A 1 and S j A 2, S i S j or (ii) for all S i A 1 and S j A 2, S i S j =. We first need a few preliminary results Finite unions of definable families 3. Proofs of the main results Suppose that T 1,...,T m R k+l are closed, definable sets, π 1 : R k+l R k and π 2 : R k+l R l the two projections.
12 Page 12 of 24 SAUGATA BASU We show that there exists a a certain closed definable subset T R k+l+m depending only on T 1,...,T m, such that for any collection of (T i,π 1,π 2 ) families A i, 1 i m, the union, 1 i m A i, is a (T,π 1,π 2)-family, where π 1 : R k+m+l R k and π 2 : R k+l+m R l+m are the usual projections. Lemma 3.1. The family 1 i m A i is a (T,π 1,π 2) family where, T = m T i {e i } R k+l+m, i=1 with e i the i-thstandardbasisvectorin R m, andπ 1 : Rk+l+m R k and π 2 : Rk+l+m R l+m, the projections onto the first k and the last l+m coordinates respectively. Proof. Obvious Hardt triviality for definable sets Our main technical tool will be the following o-minimal version of Hardt s triviality theorem (see [30, 12]). Let X R k R l and A R l be definable subsets of R k R l and R l respectively, and let π : X R l denote the projection map. We say that X is definably trivial over A if there exists a definable set F and a definable homeomorphism such that the following diagram commutes: h : F A X π 1 (A), h F A X π 1 (A), π 2 π A where π 2 : F A A is the projection onto the second factor. We call h a definable trivialization of X over A. If Y is a definable subset of X, we say that the trivialization h is compatible with Y if there is a definable subset G of F such that h(g A) = Y π 1 (A). Clearly, the restriction of h to G A is a trivialization of Y over A. Theorem 3.2 (Hardt s theorem for definable families). Let X R k R l be a definable set and let Y 1,...,Y m be definable subsets of X. Then, there exists a finite partition of R l into definable sets C 1,...,C N such that X is definably trivial over each C i, and moreover the trivializations over each C i are compatible with Y 1,...,Y m. Remark 4. Note that in particular it follows from Theorem 3.2, that there are only a finite number of topological types amongst the fibers of any definable map f : X Y between definable sets X and Y (see Remark 2 ).
13 COMBINATORIAL COMPLEXITY IN O-MINIMAL GEOMETRY Page 13 of Some notation For any definable set X R k we will denote by X c the complement of X, and by X the closure of X in R k. We also denote by B k (x,r) (resp. Bk (x,r)) the open (resp. closed) ball in R k of radius r centered at x. For any closed definable subset X R k, we will denote by d X : R k R, d X (x) = dist(x,x). Note that, it follows from the axioms in Definition 1 that d X is a definable function (that is a function whose graph is a definable set). Given closed definable sets X V R k, and ε > 0, we define the open tube of radius ε around X in V to be the definable set OT(X,V,ε) = {x V d X (x) < ε}. Similarly, we define the closed tube of radius ε around X in V to be the definable set the boundary of the closed tube, CT(X,V,ε) = {x V d X (x) ε}, BT(X,V,ε) = {x V d X (x) = ε}, and finally for ε 1 > ε 2 > 0 we define the open annulus of radii ε 1,ε 2 around X in V to be the definable set Ann(X,V,ε 1,ε 2 ) = {x V ε 2 < d X (x) < ε 1 }, and the closed annulus of radii ε 1,ε 2 around X in V to be the definable set Ann(X,V,ε 1,ε 2 ) = {x V ε 2 d X (x) ε 1 }. Forbrevitywewill denotebyot(x,r k,ε)(resp.ct(x,r k,ε),bt(x,r k,ε),ann(x,r k,ε), Ann(X,R k,ε) ) by OT(X,ε) (resp. CT(X,ε), BT(X,ε), Ann(X,ε), Ann(X,ε)) Replacing definable sets by closed and bounded ones maintaining homotopy type Let A = {S 1,...,S n } be a collection of closed, definable subsets of R k and let V R k be a closed, and bounded definable set. In this section we adapt a construction due to Gabrielov and Vorobjov [21] for replacing any given (A,V)-set by a closed bounded (A,V)-set (where A is a new family of definable closely related to A) such that the new set has the same homotopy type as the original one. We denote by In(A,V) the set, {I [1...n] A(I) V }. Let, ε 2n ε 2n 1 ε 2 ε 1 > 0 be sufficiently small. For each m,0 m n, we denote by In m (A,V) the set {I In(A,V) I = m}. Given I In m (A,V) denote by A(I) cl to be the intersection of V with the closed definable set CT(S i,ε 2m ) Si c. i I i [1...n]\I and denote by A(I) o the intersection of V with the open definable set OT(S i,ε 2m 1 ) Si c. Notice that, i I i [1...n]\I A(I) A(I) cl, as well as
14 Page 14 of 24 SAUGATA BASU A(I) A(I) o. Let X V be a(a,v)-setsuch that X = A(I) V with Σ In(A,V). We denote Σ m = I Σ Σ In m (A,V) and define a sequence of sets, X m R k, 0 m n inductively as follows. Let X 0 = X. For 0 m n, we define ( X m+1 = X m ) \ I Σ m A(I) cl I In m(a,v)\σ m A(I) o We denote by X the set X n+1. The following theorem is similar to Theorem 8.1 in [6]. All the steps in the proof of Theorem 8.1 in [6] also remain valid in the o-minimal context. One needs to replace the references to Hardt s theorem for semi-algebraic mappings by its o-minimal counterpart. Since repeating the entire proof with this minor modification would be tedious, we omit it from this paper. Theorem 3.3. The sets X and X are definably homotopy equivalent. Remark 5. Very recently, after this paper was written, Gabrielov and Vorobjov [17] have given a much simpler construction for replacing an arbitrary definable set X by a closed and bounded one, and if we use this new construction instead of the one described above, we obtain a slightly improved bound in Theorem 2.3 (namely C n k instead of C n 2k ). Remark 6. Note that X is a (A,V)-closed set, where n A = {S i,ct(s i,ε 2j ),OT(S i,ε 2j 1 ) c }. i,j=1 If A is a (T,π 1,π 2 )-family for some definable closed subset T R k+l, then by Lemma 3.1, A is a (T,π 1,π 2 )-family for some definable T depending only on T Mayer-Vietoris inequalities We will need a couple of inequalities which follows from the exactness of Mayer-Vietoris sequence. Remark 7. Notethat foraclosedandboundeddefinablesetx R k, thehomologygroups H (X)areisomorphictothesimplicialhomologygroupsofanydefinabletriangulationofX and in this case the proof of the exactness of the Mayer-Vietoris sequence is purely combinatorial in nature and presents no difficulties (even in the case when R is an arbitrary real closed field not necessarily equal to R). The same remark also applies to arbitrary definable closed sets (not necessarily bounded), after intersecting the given sets with a large enough closed ball and using the conical structure at infinity of definable sets. We first consider the case of two closed definable sets and then generalizeto the case of many such sets. Proposition 3.4. Let S 1,S 2 be two closed definable sets. Then,
15 COMBINATORIAL COMPLEXITY IN O-MINIMAL GEOMETRY Page 15 of 24 b i (S 1 )+b i (S 2 ) b i (S 1 S 2 )+b i (S 1 S 2 ), (3.1) b i (S 1 S 2 ) b i (S 1 )+b i (S 2 )+b i 1 (S 1 S 2 ), (3.2) b i (S 1 S 2 ) b i (S 1 )+b i (S 2 )+b i+1 (S 1 S 2 ). (3.3) Let S 1,...,S n R k be closed definable sets, contained in a closed bounded definable set V of dimension k. For 1 t n, we let S t = S j, and S t = S j. Also, for J {1,...,n}, J, let 1 j t S J = j J 1 j t S j, and S J = j JS j. Finally, let S = V. We have the following proposition. Proposition 3.5. (a) For 0 i k, (b) For 0 i k, b i (S n ) i+1 k i b i (S n ) b k (S )+ j=1 j=1 J {1,...n},#(J)=j J {1,...,n},#(J)=j b i j+1 (S J ). (3.4) ( ) b i+j 1 (S J )+b k (S ). (3.5) Proof. See [9] Proof of Theorem 2.2 We will use the following proposition in the proof of Theorem 2.2. Proposition 3.6. Let A = {S 1,...,S n } be a collection of closed definable subsets of R k and let V R k be a closed, and bounded definable set. Then for all sufficiently small 1 ε 1 ε 2 > 0 the following holds. For any connected component, C, of A(I) V, I [1...n], there exists a connected component, D, of the definable set Ann(S i,ε 1,ε 2 ) c V 1 i n such that D is definably homotopy equivalent to C. Proof. The proposition will follow from the following two observations which are consequences of Theorem 3.2 (Hardt s theorem for o-minimal structures). Observation 1. It follows from Theorem 3.2 that for all sufficiently small ε 1 > 0 and for each connected component C of A(I) V, there exists a connected component D of S i OT(S j,ε 1 ) c V, i I j [1...n]\I
16 Page 16 of 24 SAUGATA BASU definably homotopy equivalent to C. Observation 2. For all sufficiently small, ε 2 with 0 < ε 2 ε 1, and for each connected component D of S i OT(S j,ε 1 ) c V, i I there exists a connected component D of j [1...n]\I W := i ICT(S i,ε 2 ) j [1...n]\I definably homotopy equivalent to D. Now notice that D is connected and contained in the set Ann(S i,ε 1,ε 2 ) c V. 1 i n Let D be the connected component of 1 i n Ann(S i,ε 1,ε 2 ) c V OT(S j,ε 1 ) c V, containing D. We claim that D = D, which will prove the proposition. Suppose D \D. Then, D \W, since otherwise D W, which would imply that D = D, since D is connected and D D is a connected component of W. Let x D \W and y any point in D. Since x / W, either (i) there exists i I such that x OT(S i,ε 1 ) c or (ii) there exists i [1...n]\I such that x CT(S i,ε 2 ). Let γ : [0,1] D be a definable path with γ(0) = x,γ(1) = y. and let d i : D R be the definable continuous function, d i (z) = dist(z,s i ). Then, in the first case, d i (x) = d i (γ(0)) ε 1 and d i (y) = d i (γ(1)) < ε 2, implying that there exists t (0,1) with ε 2 < d i (γ(t)) < ε 1 implying that d i (γ(t)) Ann(S i,ε 1,ε 2 ) c and hence not in D (a contradiction). In the second case, d i (x) = d i (γ(0)) < ε 2 and d i (y) = d i (γ(1)) ε 1, implying that there exists t (0,1) with ε 2 < d i (γ(t)) < ε 1 again implying that d i (γ(t)) Ann(S i,ε 1,ε 2 ) c and hence not in D (a contradiction). We are now in a position to prove Theorem 2.2. Proof of Theorem 2.2. For 1 i n, let y i R l such that and let S i = T yi, A i (ε 1,ε 2 ) = Ann(S i,ε 1,ε 2 ) c V. Applying Proposition 3.5 we have for 0 i k, n k i b i ( A j (ε 1,ε 2 )) b k (V)+ j=1 j=1 J {1,...,n},#(J)=j ( bi+j 1 (A J (ε 1,ε 2 ))+b k (V) ), (3.6) where A J (ε 1,ε 2 ) = j J A j (ε 1,ε 2 ). Notice that each Ann(S i,ε 1,ε 2 ) c,1 i n, is a (Ann(T,ε 1,ε 2 ) c,π 1,π 2 )-set and moreover, Ann(S i,ε 1,ε 2 ) c = π 1 (π 1 2 (y i) Ann(T,ε 1,ε 2 ) c ); 1 i n. For J [1...n] with J k, we will denote S J (ε 1,ε 2 ) = j JAnn(S j,ε 1,ε 2 ) c.
17 COMBINATORIAL COMPLEXITY IN O-MINIMAL GEOMETRY Page 17 of 24 Consider the definable set B J (ε 1,ε 2 ) = j JAnn(T,ε 1,ε 2 ), where R J (k+l) is the definable (in fact, semi-algebraic) set defined by = {(x,z 1,x,z 2,...,x,z J ) x R k,z 1,...,z J R l }. The projection map π 2 induces a projection map, We also have the natural projection j Jπ 2 : R J (k+l) j J π 1 : B J (ε 1,ε 2 ) R k. R l. R k π 1 B J (ε 1,ε 2 ) Q j J π2 It is now easy to see that for each, J = {i 1,...,i J }, S J (ε 1,ε 2 ) c is homeomorphic to ( j J π 2) 1 (y i1,...,y i J ) B J (ε 1,ε 2 ) via the projection π 1. Using Remark 4 we can conclude there exists an upper bound depending only on T (and independent of y 1,...,y n as well as ε 1,ε 2 ), on the number of of topological types amongst the pairs R k,π 1 ( j Jπ 2 ) 1 (y i1,...,y i J ) B J (ε 1,ε 2 ), R J l and hence amongst the pairs (R k,s J (ε 1,ε 2 ) c ) as well. This implies that there are only a finite number (depending on T) of topological types amongst S J (ε 1,ε 2 ). Restricting all the sets to V in the above argument, we obtain that there are only finitely many (depending on T and V) of topological types amongst the sets A J (ε 1,ε 2 ) = S J (ε 1,ε 2 ) V. Thus, there exists a constant C(T,V) such that C(T,V) = ( max bi+j 1 (A J (ε 1,ε 2 ))+b k (V) ) +b k (V). J {1,...,n}, J k,0 i+j k It now follows from inequality 3.6 and Proposition 3.6 that, b i (D) C n k i. D C(A,V) We now prove Theorem 2.3. The proof of Theorem 2.3 will follow from the following proposition. For the sake of greater clarity,and since it does notaffect in anywaythe proofoftheorem2.3, we chooseto be slightly less precise in the next proposition, and prove a bound on the sum of the Betti numbers of S (rather than prove separate bounds on each individual Betti number). Recall from before that for any definable set X R k, we denote by b(x) the sum i 0 b i(x). Proposition 3.7. Let A = {S 1,...,S n } be a collection of closed definable subsets of R k and let V R k be a closed, and bounded definable set and let S be an (A,V)-closed set. Then,
18 Page 18 of 24 SAUGATA BASU for all sufficiently small 1 ε 1 ε 2 ε n > 0, b(s) where and B = D C(B,V) b(d), n {S i,bt(s i,ε i ),OT(S i,2ε i ) c }. i=1 Proof of Proposition 3.7. We define A >i = {S i+1,...,s n } and B i = {S i,bt(s i,ε i ),OT(S i,2ε i ) c }, B i = {X X = j=1,...,i X j,x j B j }. The proof of the proposition will follow from the following proposition. Proposition 3.8. For every (A,V)-closed set S, b(s) b(x V). X B s,x V S The main ingredient of the proof of the proposition is the following lemma. Lemma 3.9. For every (A,V)-closed set S, and every X B i, b(s X) Y B i+1 b(s X Y). Proof of Lemma 3.9. Consider the sets Clearly, S X = T 1 T 2. Using Proposition 3.4, we have that, Now, since we have that, T 1 = S X OT(S i+1,ε i+1 ) c, T 2 = S X CT(S i+1,3ε i+1 ). b(s X) b(t 1 )+b(t 2 )+b(t 1 T 2 ). T 1 T 2 = S X Ann(S i+1,3ε i+1,ε i+1 )), b(t 1 T 2 ) = b(s X Ann(S i+1,3ε i+1,ε i+1 )). It is now easy to verify using Theorem 3.2 that, T 1 S X OT(S i+1,2ε i+1 ) c, T 2 S X S i+1, T 1 T 2 S X BT(S i+1,2ε i+1 ), where denotes definable homotopy equivalence.
19 COMBINATORIAL COMPLEXITY IN O-MINIMAL GEOMETRY Page 19 of 24 Finally, b(s X) Y B i+1 b(s X Y). Proof of Proposition 3.8. Starting from the set S apply Lemma 3.9 with X the empty set. Now, repeatedly apply Lemma 3.9 to the terms appearing on the right-hand side of the inequality obtained, noting that for any Y B s, either S X = X, and thus X S, or S X =. The proof of Proposition 3.7 now follows from Proposition Proof of Theorem 2.3 Proof of Theorem 2.3. Follows directly from Theorem 3.3, Theorem 2.2 and Proposition Proof of Theorem 2.4 The proof of Theorem 2.4 relies on the bounds in Theorem 2.1, and on the following theorem which is adapted to the o-minimal setting from [18]. Theorem Let X and Y be two closed, definable sets and f : X Y a definable continuous surjection which is closed (i.e. f takes closed sets to closed sets). Then for any integer q, we have b q (Y) i+j=q where Wf i (X) denotes the (i+1)-fold fibered product of X over f: b j (Wf i (X)), (3.7) W i f (X) = {(x 0,...,x i ) X i+1 f(x 0 ) = = f(x i )}. Remark 8. (Regarding the proof of Theorem 3.10.) Theorem 3.10 was proved in [18] in the semi-algebraic and semi-pfaffian setting and follows from the existence of a spectral sequence Er i,j converging to H (Y) and such that E i,j 1 = H j (Wf i (X)). Thus, the extension of this theorem to general o-minimal structures over arbitrary real closed fields R (not necessarily equal to R) requires some remarks.the existence of the spectral sequence Er i,j is a consequence of the p-connectivity of the (p+1)-fold join of any simplicial complex K, and the Vietoris- Begle theorem. The proof of the p-connectivity of the (p + 1)-fold join of any simplicial complex K is combinatorial in nature (see, for instance, [23, Proposition 4.4.3]), and thus presents no additional difficulties over general o-minimal structures. A purely combinatorial proof of the Vietoris-Begle theorem is also known [10, Theorem 2] (see also [17, Corollary 2.6]). Since the rest of the argument is combinatorial in nature, it extends without difficulty to closed maps in arbitrary o-minimal structures after choosing appropriate triangulations. Finally, since in any spectral sequence, the dimensions of the terms Er i,j are non-increasing when i and j are fixed and r increases, we obtain: b n (Y) = dim ( E i,j ) ( ) dim E i,j 1, i+j=n yielding inequality (3.7). i+j=n
20 Page 20 of 24 SAUGATA BASU Proof oftheorem2.4. Notice that foreachp,0 p k 2,and anya-closedsets R k1+k2, Wπ p 3 (S) R (p+1)k1+k2 is an A p -closed set where, p A p = A p,j, where S p,j i R (p+1)k1+k2 is defined by A p,j = j=0 n i=1 {S p,j i }, S p,j i = {(x 0,...,x p,y) x j R k1,y R k2,(x j,y) S i }. Also, note that A p,j is a (T p,j,π p 1,πp 2 ) family, where T p,j = {(x 0,...,x p,y,z) x j R k1,y R k2,z R l,(x j,y,z) T, for some j,0 j p}. and π p 1 : R(p+1)k1+k2+l R (p+1)k1+k2, and π p 2 : R(p+1)k1+k2+l R l are the appropriate projections. Since each T p,j is determined by T, we have using Lemma 3.1 that A p is a (T,π 1,π 2 )-family for some definable T determined by T. Note that, W p π 3 (S) R (p+1)k1+k2 is a A p -closed set and #A p = (p+1)n. Applying Theorem 2.1 we get, for each p and j, 0 p,j < k 2, b j (W p π 3 (S)) C 1 (T) n (p+1)k1+k2 The theorem now follows from Theorem 3.10, since for each q,0 q < k 2, b q (π 3 (S)) b j (Wπ i 3 (S)) C 2 (T) n (q+1)k1+k2 C(T) n (k1+1)k2. i+j=q 3.9. Proof of Theorem 2.5 The proof of Theorem 2.5 will follow from the following lemma (which corresponds to the first projection step in the more familiar cylindrical algebraic decomposition algorithm for semi-algebraic sets (see, for instance, [5])). Lemma Let S(R) be an o-minimal structure over a real closed field R, and let T R k+l be acloseddefinableset.then,thereexistsdefinablesetst 1,...,T N R k 1+2l satisfying the following. For each i,1 i N, and y,y R l, let B i (y,y ) = π k 1 k 1+2l ( π >k 1 k 1+2l 1 (y1,y 2 ) T i ). Theprojectionπ >1 k : R k R k 1 restrictedtothesetst y T y isdefinablytrivialoverb i (y,y ) and the trivialization is compatible with T y and T y. Proof. Let V 0 = {(x,y,y ) (x,y) T or (x,y ) T}, V 1 = {(x,y,y ) (x,y) T}, V 2 = {(x,y,y ) (x,y ) T}. Note that V 0 R k+2l and V 1,V 2 V 0 and V 0,V 1,V 2 are all definable and determined by T. Applying Hardt s triviality theorem to the sets V 0,V 1,V 2 and the projection map π >1 k+2l, we
21 COMBINATORIAL COMPLEXITY IN O-MINIMAL GEOMETRY Page 21 of 24 get a definable partition of R k 1+2l into definable sets T 1,...,T N, such that π >1 k+2l V 0 can be trivialized over each T i and the trivializations respects the subsets V 1,V 2. It is now easy to check that the sets T i have the required properties. Proof of Theorem 2.5. We will use induction on k. The base case is when k = 1 and the theorem is clearly true in this case. Now suppose by induction hypothesis that the theorem is true for k 1. We first apply Lemma 3.11 to obtain definable sets T 1,...,T N R k 1+2l satisfying the following conditions. For each i,1 i N, and y,y R l, the projection π k >1 : R k R k 1 restricted to the sets T y T y is definably trivial over B i (y,y ) and the trivialization is compatible with T y and T y, where ( ) B i (y,y ) = π k 1 k 1+2l π >k 1 1 k 1+2l (y,y ) T i, Now let T = 1 i N B i {e i } where e i is that i-th standard basis vector in R N. Note that T R k 1+2l+N. Applying the induction hypothesis to the triple ( ) T R k 1+2(2k 1 1) (2l+N),π k 1 k 1+2(2 k 1 1) (2l+N),π>k 1 k 1+2(2 k 1 1) (2l+N) we obtain definable sets, {T j } j J, T j Rk 1 R 2(2k 1 1) (2l+N), depending only on T having the property that, for any y 1,...,y n, R l and a = (a 1,...,a 2(2 1)) R k 1 2(2k 1 1) N where each a i is a standard basis vector in R N, some sub-collection of the sets π k 1 k 1+2(2 k 1 1) (2l+N) ( ) π >k 1 k 1+2(2 1) (2l+N) 1 k 1 (yi1,...,y,a) T i2 2 (2 k i, 1) form a cdcd of R k compatible with the family {B h (y i,y j )}. For x R k 1, and y R l, let 1 i,j n 1 h N S(x,y) = {x R (x,x,y) T}. Now, for x R k 1,y,y R l, S(x,y),S(x,y ) R and each of them is a union of a finite number of open intervals and points. The sets S(x,y),S(x,y ) induce a partition of R into pairwise disjoint subsets, V 1 (x,y,y ),V 2 (x,y,y ),..., where for i 0, each V 2i+1 (x,y,y ) is a maximal open interval contained in one of S(x,y) S(x,y ),S(x,y) c S(x,y ), S(x,y) S(x,y ) c,s(x,y) c S(x,y ) c, and V 2i (x,y,y ) is the right end-point of the interval V 2i 1 (x,y,y ). We let V(x,y,y ) denote the ordered sequence, (V 1 (x,y,y ),V 2 (x,y,y ),...,V M (x,y,y )), where M is a uniform upper bound on V depending on T, and with the understanding that V i (x,y,y ) can be empty for all i i 0 for some 0 i 0 M. It is clear that the sets, V i = {(V i (x,y,y ),x,y,y ) x R k 1,y,y R l }
Combinatorial complexity in o-minimal geometry
Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society Advance Access published August 9, 2009 Proc. London Math. Soc. Page 1 of 24 C 2009 London Mathematical Society doi:10.1112/plms/pdp031 Combinatorial complexity
More informationarxiv: v2 [math.ag] 24 Jun 2015
TRIANGULATIONS OF MONOTONE FAMILIES I: TWO-DIMENSIONAL FAMILIES arxiv:1402.0460v2 [math.ag] 24 Jun 2015 SAUGATA BASU, ANDREI GABRIELOV, AND NICOLAI VOROBJOV Abstract. Let K R n be a compact definable set
More informationA COMPLEXITY THEORY OF CONSTRUCTIBLE FUNCTIONS AND SHEAVES
A COMPLEXITY THEORY OF CONSTRUCTIBLE FUNCTIONS AND SHEAVES SAUGATA BASU Abstract. In this paper we introduce constructible analogs of the discrete complexity classes VP and VNP of sequences of functions.
More informationALGORITHMS IN REAL ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY: A SURVEY
ALGORITHMS IN REAL ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY: A SURVEY SAUGATA BASU Abstract. We survey both old and new developments in the theory of algorithms in real algebraic geometry starting from effective quantifier
More informationContents. O-minimal geometry. Tobias Kaiser. Universität Passau. 19. Juli O-minimal geometry
19. Juli 2016 1. Axiom of o-minimality 1.1 Semialgebraic sets 2.1 Structures 2.2 O-minimal structures 2. Tameness 2.1 Cell decomposition 2.2 Smoothness 2.3 Stratification 2.4 Triangulation 2.5 Trivialization
More informationA COMPLEXITY THEORY OF CONSTRUCTIBLE FUNCTIONS AND SHEAVES
A COMPLEXITY THEORY OF CONSTRUCTIBLE FUNCTIONS AND SHEAVES SAUGATA BASU Dedicated to Mike Shub on his 70-th birthday. Abstract. In this paper we introduce constructible analogs of the discrete complexity
More informationON THE REEB SPACES OF DEFINABLE MAPS
ON THE REEB SPACES OF DEFINABLE MAPS SAUGATA BASU, NATHANAEL COX, AND SARAH PERCIVAL Abstract. We prove that the Reeb space of a proper definable map in an arbitrary o-minimal expansion of the reals is
More information12. Hilbert Polynomials and Bézout s Theorem
12. Hilbert Polynomials and Bézout s Theorem 95 12. Hilbert Polynomials and Bézout s Theorem After our study of smooth cubic surfaces in the last chapter, let us now come back to the general theory of
More informationTopological properties
CHAPTER 4 Topological properties 1. Connectedness Definitions and examples Basic properties Connected components Connected versus path connected, again 2. Compactness Definition and first examples Topological
More informationCHAPTER 7. Connectedness
CHAPTER 7 Connectedness 7.1. Connected topological spaces Definition 7.1. A topological space (X, T X ) is said to be connected if there is no continuous surjection f : X {0, 1} where the two point set
More informationCourse 311: Michaelmas Term 2005 Part III: Topics in Commutative Algebra
Course 311: Michaelmas Term 2005 Part III: Topics in Commutative Algebra D. R. Wilkins Contents 3 Topics in Commutative Algebra 2 3.1 Rings and Fields......................... 2 3.2 Ideals...............................
More informationGeometry of subanalytic and semialgebraic sets, by M. Shiota, Birkhäuser, Boston, MA, 1997, xii+431 pp., $89.50, ISBN
BULLETIN (New Series) OF THE AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY Volume 36, Number 4, ages 523 527 S 0273-0979(99)00793-4 Article electronically published on July 27, 1999 Geometry of subanalytic and semialgebraic
More informationEilenberg-Steenrod properties. (Hatcher, 2.1, 2.3, 3.1; Conlon, 2.6, 8.1, )
II.3 : Eilenberg-Steenrod properties (Hatcher, 2.1, 2.3, 3.1; Conlon, 2.6, 8.1, 8.3 8.5 Definition. Let U be an open subset of R n for some n. The de Rham cohomology groups (U are the cohomology groups
More informationTree sets. Reinhard Diestel
1 Tree sets Reinhard Diestel Abstract We study an abstract notion of tree structure which generalizes treedecompositions of graphs and matroids. Unlike tree-decompositions, which are too closely linked
More informationALGORITHMS IN REAL ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY: A SURVEY
ALGORITHMS IN REAL ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY: A SURVEY SAUGATA BASU Abstract. We survey both old and new developments in the theory of algorithms in real algebraic geometry starting from effective quantifier
More informationModel-theoretic distality and incidence combinatorics
Model-theoretic distality and incidence combinatorics Artem Chernikov UCLA Model Theory and Combinatorics workshop IHP, Paris, France Jan 29, 2018 Intro I will discuss generalizations of various results
More informationON THE ISOTYPIC DECOMPOSITION OF COHOMOLOGY MODULES OF SYMMETRIC SEMI-ALGEBRAIC SETS: POLYNOMIAL BOUNDS ON MULTIPLICITIES
ON THE ISOTYPIC DECOMPOSITION OF COHOMOLOGY MODULES OF SYMMETRIC SEMI-ALGEBRAIC SETS: POLYNOMIAL BOUNDS ON MULTIPLICITIES SAUGATA BASU AND CORDIAN RIENER Abstract. We consider symmetric (under the action
More informationALGEBRAIC PROPERTIES OF BIER SPHERES
LE MATEMATICHE Vol. LXVII (2012 Fasc. I, pp. 91 101 doi: 10.4418/2012.67.1.9 ALGEBRAIC PROPERTIES OF BIER SPHERES INGA HEUDTLASS - LUKAS KATTHÄN We give a classification of flag Bier spheres, as well as
More informationMATH 8253 ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY WEEK 12
MATH 8253 ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY WEEK 2 CİHAN BAHRAN 3.2.. Let Y be a Noetherian scheme. Show that any Y -scheme X of finite type is Noetherian. Moreover, if Y is of finite dimension, then so is X. Write f
More informationInstitutionen för matematik, KTH.
Institutionen för matematik, KTH. Contents 7 Affine Varieties 1 7.1 The polynomial ring....................... 1 7.2 Hypersurfaces........................... 1 7.3 Ideals...............................
More informationCourse 212: Academic Year Section 1: Metric Spaces
Course 212: Academic Year 1991-2 Section 1: Metric Spaces D. R. Wilkins Contents 1 Metric Spaces 3 1.1 Distance Functions and Metric Spaces............. 3 1.2 Convergence and Continuity in Metric Spaces.........
More information10. Smooth Varieties. 82 Andreas Gathmann
82 Andreas Gathmann 10. Smooth Varieties Let a be a point on a variety X. In the last chapter we have introduced the tangent cone C a X as a way to study X locally around a (see Construction 9.20). It
More informationarxiv: v1 [math.co] 25 Jun 2014
THE NON-PURE VERSION OF THE SIMPLEX AND THE BOUNDARY OF THE SIMPLEX NICOLÁS A. CAPITELLI arxiv:1406.6434v1 [math.co] 25 Jun 2014 Abstract. We introduce the non-pure versions of simplicial balls and spheres
More informationThe Strong Largeur d Arborescence
The Strong Largeur d Arborescence Rik Steenkamp (5887321) November 12, 2013 Master Thesis Supervisor: prof.dr. Monique Laurent Local Supervisor: prof.dr. Alexander Schrijver KdV Institute for Mathematics
More informationON HOMOTOPY TYPES OF LIMITS OF SEMI-ALGEBRAIC SETS AND ADDITIVE COMPLEXITY OF POLYNOMIALS
ON HOMOTOPY TYPES OF LIMITS OF SEMI-ALGEBRAIC SETS AND ADDITIVE COMPLEXITY OF POLYNOMIALS SAL BARONE AND SAUGATA BASU Abstract. We prove that the number of homotopy types of limits of oneparameter semi-algebraic
More informationDefinable Extension Theorems in O-minimal Structures. Matthias Aschenbrenner University of California, Los Angeles
Definable Extension Theorems in O-minimal Structures Matthias Aschenbrenner University of California, Los Angeles 1 O-minimality Basic definitions and examples Geometry of definable sets Why o-minimal
More informationMeasures and Measure Spaces
Chapter 2 Measures and Measure Spaces In summarizing the flaws of the Riemann integral we can focus on two main points: 1) Many nice functions are not Riemann integrable. 2) The Riemann integral does not
More informationPOLYNOMIAL HIERARCHY, BETTI NUMBERS AND A REAL ANALOGUE OF TODA S THEOREM
POLYNOMIAL HIERARCHY, BETTI NUMBERS AND A REAL ANALOGUE OF TODA S THEOREM SAUGATA BASU AND THIERRY ZELL Abstract. We study the relationship between the computational hardness of two well-studied problems
More informationPart III. 10 Topological Space Basics. Topological Spaces
Part III 10 Topological Space Basics Topological Spaces Using the metric space results above as motivation we will axiomatize the notion of being an open set to more general settings. Definition 10.1.
More informationTHE CLOSED-POINT ZARISKI TOPOLOGY FOR IRREDUCIBLE REPRESENTATIONS. K. R. Goodearl and E. S. Letzter
THE CLOSED-POINT ZARISKI TOPOLOGY FOR IRREDUCIBLE REPRESENTATIONS K. R. Goodearl and E. S. Letzter Abstract. In previous work, the second author introduced a topology, for spaces of irreducible representations,
More informationON A REAL ANALOGUE OF BEZOUT INEQUALITY AND THE NUMBER OF CONNECTED COMPONENTS OF SIGN CONDITIONS
ON A REAL ANALOGUE OF BEZOUT INEQUALITY AND THE NUMBER OF CONNECTED COMPONENTS OF SIGN CONDITIONS SAL BARONE AND SAUGATA BASU Abstract Let R be a real closed field and Q 1,, Q l R[X 1,, X k ] such that
More informationCW-complexes. Stephen A. Mitchell. November 1997
CW-complexes Stephen A. Mitchell November 1997 A CW-complex is first of all a Hausdorff space X equipped with a collection of characteristic maps φ n α : D n X. Here n ranges over the nonnegative integers,
More informationBoolean Algebras. Chapter 2
Chapter 2 Boolean Algebras Let X be an arbitrary set and let P(X) be the class of all subsets of X (the power set of X). Three natural set-theoretic operations on P(X) are the binary operations of union
More information08a. Operators on Hilbert spaces. 1. Boundedness, continuity, operator norms
(February 24, 2017) 08a. Operators on Hilbert spaces Paul Garrett garrett@math.umn.edu http://www.math.umn.edu/ garrett/ [This document is http://www.math.umn.edu/ garrett/m/real/notes 2016-17/08a-ops
More informationChapter 8. P-adic numbers. 8.1 Absolute values
Chapter 8 P-adic numbers Literature: N. Koblitz, p-adic Numbers, p-adic Analysis, and Zeta-Functions, 2nd edition, Graduate Texts in Mathematics 58, Springer Verlag 1984, corrected 2nd printing 1996, Chap.
More informationAlgebraic Varieties. Notes by Mateusz Micha lek for the lecture on April 17, 2018, in the IMPRS Ringvorlesung Introduction to Nonlinear Algebra
Algebraic Varieties Notes by Mateusz Micha lek for the lecture on April 17, 2018, in the IMPRS Ringvorlesung Introduction to Nonlinear Algebra Algebraic varieties represent solutions of a system of polynomial
More information2. Intersection Multiplicities
2. Intersection Multiplicities 11 2. Intersection Multiplicities Let us start our study of curves by introducing the concept of intersection multiplicity, which will be central throughout these notes.
More informationLocal properties of plane algebraic curves
Chapter 7 Local properties of plane algebraic curves Throughout this chapter let K be an algebraically closed field of characteristic zero, and as usual let A (K) be embedded into P (K) by identifying
More informationHomotopy and homology groups of the n-dimensional Hawaiian earring
F U N D A M E N T A MATHEMATICAE 165 (2000) Homotopy and homology groups of the n-dimensional Hawaiian earring by Katsuya E d a (Tokyo) and Kazuhiro K a w a m u r a (Tsukuba) Abstract. For the n-dimensional
More informationMAT 570 REAL ANALYSIS LECTURE NOTES. Contents. 1. Sets Functions Countability Axiom of choice Equivalence relations 9
MAT 570 REAL ANALYSIS LECTURE NOTES PROFESSOR: JOHN QUIGG SEMESTER: FALL 204 Contents. Sets 2 2. Functions 5 3. Countability 7 4. Axiom of choice 8 5. Equivalence relations 9 6. Real numbers 9 7. Extended
More informationOn the strong cell decomposition property for weakly o-minimal structures
On the strong cell decomposition property for weakly o-minimal structures Roman Wencel 1 Instytut Matematyczny Uniwersytetu Wroc lawskiego ABSTRACT We consider a class of weakly o-minimal structures admitting
More informationMath 6510 Homework 10
2.2 Problems 9 Problem. Compute the homology group of the following 2-complexes X: a) The quotient of S 2 obtained by identifying north and south poles to a point b) S 1 (S 1 S 1 ) c) The space obtained
More information10. Noether Normalization and Hilbert s Nullstellensatz
10. Noether Normalization and Hilbert s Nullstellensatz 91 10. Noether Normalization and Hilbert s Nullstellensatz In the last chapter we have gained much understanding for integral and finite ring extensions.
More informationPERVERSE SHEAVES ON A TRIANGULATED SPACE
PERVERSE SHEAVES ON A TRIANGULATED SPACE A. POLISHCHUK The goal of this note is to prove that the category of perverse sheaves constructible with respect to a triangulation is Koszul (i.e. equivalent to
More informationPart V. 17 Introduction: What are measures and why measurable sets. Lebesgue Integration Theory
Part V 7 Introduction: What are measures and why measurable sets Lebesgue Integration Theory Definition 7. (Preliminary). A measure on a set is a function :2 [ ] such that. () = 2. If { } = is a finite
More informationMICHAEL S SELECTION THEOREM IN D-MINIMAL EXPANSIONS OF THE REAL FIELD
MICHAEL S SELECTION THEOREM IN D-MINIMAL EXPANSIONS OF THE REAL FIELD ATHIPAT THAMRONGTHANYALAK DRAFT: March 8, 2017 Abstract. Let E R n. If T is a lower semi-continuous set-valued map from E to R m and
More informationTopological Data Analysis - Spring 2018
Topological Data Analysis - Spring 2018 Simplicial Homology Slightly rearranged, but mostly copy-pasted from Harer s and Edelsbrunner s Computational Topology, Verovsek s class notes. Gunnar Carlsson s
More informationCharacterizations of the finite quadric Veroneseans V 2n
Characterizations of the finite quadric Veroneseans V 2n n J. A. Thas H. Van Maldeghem Abstract We generalize and complete several characterizations of the finite quadric Veroneseans surveyed in [3]. Our
More informationMH 7500 THEOREMS. (iii) A = A; (iv) A B = A B. Theorem 5. If {A α : α Λ} is any collection of subsets of a space X, then
MH 7500 THEOREMS Definition. A topological space is an ordered pair (X, T ), where X is a set and T is a collection of subsets of X such that (i) T and X T ; (ii) U V T whenever U, V T ; (iii) U T whenever
More information3. The Sheaf of Regular Functions
24 Andreas Gathmann 3. The Sheaf of Regular Functions After having defined affine varieties, our next goal must be to say what kind of maps between them we want to consider as morphisms, i. e. as nice
More information2. The Concept of Convergence: Ultrafilters and Nets
2. The Concept of Convergence: Ultrafilters and Nets NOTE: AS OF 2008, SOME OF THIS STUFF IS A BIT OUT- DATED AND HAS A FEW TYPOS. I WILL REVISE THIS MATE- RIAL SOMETIME. In this lecture we discuss two
More information9. Birational Maps and Blowing Up
72 Andreas Gathmann 9. Birational Maps and Blowing Up In the course of this class we have already seen many examples of varieties that are almost the same in the sense that they contain isomorphic dense
More information(iv) Whitney s condition B. Suppose S β S α. If two sequences (a k ) S α and (b k ) S β both converge to the same x S β then lim.
0.1. Stratified spaces. References are [7], [6], [3]. Singular spaces are naturally associated to many important mathematical objects (for example in representation theory). We are essentially interested
More informationGeneric section of a hyperplane arrangement and twisted Hurewicz maps
arxiv:math/0605643v2 [math.gt] 26 Oct 2007 Generic section of a hyperplane arrangement and twisted Hurewicz maps Masahiko Yoshinaga Department of Mathematice, Graduate School of Science, Kobe University,
More information7.3 Singular Homology Groups
184 CHAPTER 7. HOMOLOGY THEORY 7.3 Singular Homology Groups 7.3.1 Cycles, Boundaries and Homology Groups We can define the singular p-chains with coefficients in a field K. Furthermore, we can define the
More informationGenerating the Pfaffian closure with total Pfaffian functions
1 6 ISSN 1759-9008 1 Generating the Pfaffian closure with total Pfaffian functions GARETH JONES PATRICK SPEISSEGGER Abstract: Given an o-minimal expansion R of the real field, we show that the structure
More information121B: ALGEBRAIC TOPOLOGY. Contents. 6. Poincaré Duality
121B: ALGEBRAIC TOPOLOGY Contents 6. Poincaré Duality 1 6.1. Manifolds 2 6.2. Orientation 3 6.3. Orientation sheaf 9 6.4. Cap product 11 6.5. Proof for good coverings 15 6.6. Direct limit 18 6.7. Proof
More informationNotes on Complex Analysis
Michael Papadimitrakis Notes on Complex Analysis Department of Mathematics University of Crete Contents The complex plane.. The complex plane...................................2 Argument and polar representation.........................
More informationIntroduction to Dynamical Systems
Introduction to Dynamical Systems France-Kosovo Undergraduate Research School of Mathematics March 2017 This introduction to dynamical systems was a course given at the march 2017 edition of the France
More informationADVANCED TOPICS IN ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY
ADVANCED TOPICS IN ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY DAVID WHITE Outline of talk: My goal is to introduce a few more advanced topics in algebraic geometry but not to go into too much detail. This will be a survey of
More informationarxiv: v1 [math.fa] 14 Jul 2018
Construction of Regular Non-Atomic arxiv:180705437v1 [mathfa] 14 Jul 2018 Strictly-Positive Measures in Second-Countable Locally Compact Non-Atomic Hausdorff Spaces Abstract Jason Bentley Department of
More information(1) A frac = b : a, b A, b 0. We can define addition and multiplication of fractions as we normally would. a b + c d
The Algebraic Method 0.1. Integral Domains. Emmy Noether and others quickly realized that the classical algebraic number theory of Dedekind could be abstracted completely. In particular, rings of integers
More informationMath 530 Lecture Notes. Xi Chen
Math 530 Lecture Notes Xi Chen 632 Central Academic Building, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2G1, CANADA E-mail address: xichen@math.ualberta.ca 1991 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary
More informationVC-DENSITY FOR TREES
VC-DENSITY FOR TREES ANTON BOBKOV Abstract. We show that for the theory of infinite trees we have vc(n) = n for all n. VC density was introduced in [1] by Aschenbrenner, Dolich, Haskell, MacPherson, and
More informationFoundations of Mathematics MATH 220 FALL 2017 Lecture Notes
Foundations of Mathematics MATH 220 FALL 2017 Lecture Notes These notes form a brief summary of what has been covered during the lectures. All the definitions must be memorized and understood. Statements
More informationA SHORT PROOF OF ROST NILPOTENCE VIA REFINED CORRESPONDENCES
A SHORT PROOF OF ROST NILPOTENCE VIA REFINED CORRESPONDENCES PATRICK BROSNAN Abstract. I generalize the standard notion of the composition g f of correspondences f : X Y and g : Y Z to the case that X
More informationTopology of Nonarchimedean Analytic Spaces
Topology of Nonarchimedean Analytic Spaces AMS Current Events Bulletin Sam Payne January 11, 2013 Complex algebraic geometry Let X C n be an algebraic set, the common solutions of a system of polynomial
More informationThe geometry of secants in embedded polar spaces
The geometry of secants in embedded polar spaces Hans Cuypers Department of Mathematics Eindhoven University of Technology P.O. Box 513 5600 MB Eindhoven The Netherlands June 1, 2006 Abstract Consider
More informationMULTIPLICITIES OF MONOMIAL IDEALS
MULTIPLICITIES OF MONOMIAL IDEALS JÜRGEN HERZOG AND HEMA SRINIVASAN Introduction Let S = K[x 1 x n ] be a polynomial ring over a field K with standard grading, I S a graded ideal. The multiplicity of S/I
More information1 Differentiable manifolds and smooth maps
1 Differentiable manifolds and smooth maps Last updated: April 14, 2011. 1.1 Examples and definitions Roughly, manifolds are sets where one can introduce coordinates. An n-dimensional manifold is a set
More informationLECTURE 15: COMPLETENESS AND CONVEXITY
LECTURE 15: COMPLETENESS AND CONVEXITY 1. The Hopf-Rinow Theorem Recall that a Riemannian manifold (M, g) is called geodesically complete if the maximal defining interval of any geodesic is R. On the other
More informationAn effective version of Wilkie s theorem of the complement and some effective o-minimality results
An effective version of Wilkie s theorem of the complement and some effective o-minimality results Alessandro Berarducci Dipartimento di Matematica, Università di Pisa, Via Buonarroti 2, 56127 Pisa Tamara
More informationne varieties (continued)
Chapter 2 A ne varieties (continued) 2.1 Products For some problems its not very natural to restrict to irreducible varieties. So we broaden the previous story. Given an a ne algebraic set X A n k, we
More informationALGEBRAICALLY TRIVIAL, BUT TOPOLOGICALLY NON-TRIVIAL MAP. Contents 1. Introduction 1
ALGEBRAICALLY TRIVIAL, BUT TOPOLOGICALLY NON-TRIVIAL MAP HONG GYUN KIM Abstract. I studied the construction of an algebraically trivial, but topologically non-trivial map by Hopf map p : S 3 S 2 and a
More informationMath 341: Convex Geometry. Xi Chen
Math 341: Convex Geometry Xi Chen 479 Central Academic Building, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2G1, CANADA E-mail address: xichen@math.ualberta.ca CHAPTER 1 Basics 1. Euclidean Geometry
More informationTopology. Xiaolong Han. Department of Mathematics, California State University, Northridge, CA 91330, USA address:
Topology Xiaolong Han Department of Mathematics, California State University, Northridge, CA 91330, USA E-mail address: Xiaolong.Han@csun.edu Remark. You are entitled to a reward of 1 point toward a homework
More informationOn the Number of Connected Components of the Relative Closure of a Semi-Pfaffian Family
DIMACS Series in Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science On the Number of Connected Components of the Relative Closure of a Semi-Pfaffian Family Andrei Gabrielov and Thierry Zell Abstract.
More informationChapter 1. Measure Spaces. 1.1 Algebras and σ algebras of sets Notation and preliminaries
Chapter 1 Measure Spaces 1.1 Algebras and σ algebras of sets 1.1.1 Notation and preliminaries We shall denote by X a nonempty set, by P(X) the set of all parts (i.e., subsets) of X, and by the empty set.
More information0. Introduction 1 0. INTRODUCTION
0. Introduction 1 0. INTRODUCTION In a very rough sketch we explain what algebraic geometry is about and what it can be used for. We stress the many correlations with other fields of research, such as
More information6 Axiomatic Homology Theory
MATH41071/MATH61071 Algebraic topology 6 Axiomatic Homology Theory Autumn Semester 2016 2017 The basic ideas of homology go back to Poincaré in 1895 when he defined the Betti numbers and torsion numbers
More informationπ X : X Y X and π Y : X Y Y
Math 6130 Notes. Fall 2002. 6. Hausdorffness and Compactness. We would like to be able to say that all quasi-projective varieties are Hausdorff and that projective varieties are the only compact varieties.
More informationCHEVALLEY S THEOREM AND COMPLETE VARIETIES
CHEVALLEY S THEOREM AND COMPLETE VARIETIES BRIAN OSSERMAN In this note, we introduce the concept which plays the role of compactness for varieties completeness. We prove that completeness can be characterized
More informationMath 541 Fall 2008 Connectivity Transition from Math 453/503 to Math 541 Ross E. Staffeldt-August 2008
Math 541 Fall 2008 Connectivity Transition from Math 453/503 to Math 541 Ross E. Staffeldt-August 2008 Closed sets We have been operating at a fundamental level at which a topological space is a set together
More information2 Metric Spaces Definitions Exotic Examples... 3
Contents 1 Vector Spaces and Norms 1 2 Metric Spaces 2 2.1 Definitions.......................................... 2 2.2 Exotic Examples...................................... 3 3 Topologies 4 3.1 Open Sets..........................................
More information1 The Local-to-Global Lemma
Point-Set Topology Connectedness: Lecture 2 1 The Local-to-Global Lemma In the world of advanced mathematics, we are often interested in comparing the local properties of a space to its global properties.
More informationChapter 2 Metric Spaces
Chapter 2 Metric Spaces The purpose of this chapter is to present a summary of some basic properties of metric and topological spaces that play an important role in the main body of the book. 2.1 Metrics
More informationPOL502: Foundations. Kosuke Imai Department of Politics, Princeton University. October 10, 2005
POL502: Foundations Kosuke Imai Department of Politics, Princeton University October 10, 2005 Our first task is to develop the foundations that are necessary for the materials covered in this course. 1
More informationIntersections of Leray Complexes and Regularity of Monomial Ideals
Intersections of Leray Complexes and Regularity of Monomial Ideals Gil Kalai Roy Meshulam Abstract For a simplicial complex X and a field K, let h i X) = dim H i X; K). It is shown that if X,Y are complexes
More informationChordal Coxeter Groups
arxiv:math/0607301v1 [math.gr] 12 Jul 2006 Chordal Coxeter Groups John Ratcliffe and Steven Tschantz Mathematics Department, Vanderbilt University, Nashville TN 37240, USA Abstract: A solution of the isomorphism
More informationDynamical Systems 2, MA 761
Dynamical Systems 2, MA 761 Topological Dynamics This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 9970363 1 Periodic Points 1 The main objects studied in the
More informationBetti Number Bounds, Applications and Algorithms
Combinatorial and Computational Geometry MSRI Publications Volume 52, 2005 Betti Number Bounds, Applications and Algorithms SAUGATA BASU, RICHARD POLLACK, AND MARIE-FRANÇOISE ROY Abstract. Topological
More informationManifolds and Poincaré duality
226 CHAPTER 11 Manifolds and Poincaré duality 1. Manifolds The homology H (M) of a manifold M often exhibits an interesting symmetry. Here are some examples. M = S 1 S 1 S 1 : M = S 2 S 3 : H 0 = Z, H
More information11. Dimension. 96 Andreas Gathmann
96 Andreas Gathmann 11. Dimension We have already met several situations in this course in which it seemed to be desirable to have a notion of dimension (of a variety, or more generally of a ring): for
More informationCHODOUNSKY, DAVID, M.A. Relative Topological Properties. (2006) Directed by Dr. Jerry Vaughan. 48pp.
CHODOUNSKY, DAVID, M.A. Relative Topological Properties. (2006) Directed by Dr. Jerry Vaughan. 48pp. In this thesis we study the concepts of relative topological properties and give some basic facts and
More informationDIVIDE AND CONQUER ROADMAP FOR ALGEBRAIC SETS
DIVIDE AND CONQUER ROADMAP FOR ALGEBRAIC SETS SAUGATA BASU AND MARIE-FRANÇOISE ROY Abstract. Let R be a real closed field, and D R an ordered domain. We describe an algorithm that given as input a polynomial
More informationIsomorphisms between pattern classes
Journal of Combinatorics olume 0, Number 0, 1 8, 0000 Isomorphisms between pattern classes M. H. Albert, M. D. Atkinson and Anders Claesson Isomorphisms φ : A B between pattern classes are considered.
More information1 Flat, Smooth, Unramified, and Étale Morphisms
1 Flat, Smooth, Unramified, and Étale Morphisms 1.1 Flat morphisms Definition 1.1. An A-module M is flat if the (right-exact) functor A M is exact. It is faithfully flat if a complex of A-modules P N Q
More informationA NEW SET THEORY FOR ANALYSIS
Article A NEW SET THEORY FOR ANALYSIS Juan Pablo Ramírez 0000-0002-4912-2952 Abstract: We present the real number system as a generalization of the natural numbers. First, we prove the co-finite topology,
More informationA BOREL SOLUTION TO THE HORN-TARSKI PROBLEM. MSC 2000: 03E05, 03E20, 06A10 Keywords: Chain Conditions, Boolean Algebras.
A BOREL SOLUTION TO THE HORN-TARSKI PROBLEM STEVO TODORCEVIC Abstract. We describe a Borel poset satisfying the σ-finite chain condition but failing to satisfy the σ-bounded chain condition. MSC 2000:
More informationLebesgue Measure on R n
CHAPTER 2 Lebesgue Measure on R n Our goal is to construct a notion of the volume, or Lebesgue measure, of rather general subsets of R n that reduces to the usual volume of elementary geometrical sets
More information